>> On 7-Jun-07, at 6:31 PM, Recordon, David wrote: >> >> You could also, don't shudder too hard Dick :), use an i-number >> as your persistent identifier via this method though on the flip-side >> could also use a fragment if that is the approach someone would >> like to >> take. >> >> The nice thing is that this method is extremely flexible in terms of >> what you use as your persistent identifier in different cases. > >Johnny Bufu wrote: > >The question (that we will need to specify or have a clear pointer >to) is how the canonical ID verification is done. (BTW: Was this >section updated on Wed in the XRI draft?)
The second editor's draft of XRI Resolution 2.0 Working Draft 11 was posted Wed night at: Http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24286/xri-resolution-v2.0- wd-11-ed-02.doc However, there was so much discussion around specifying Canonical ID verification for URLs that we didn't update that section (11) yet, instead we just put in commments saying it was under discussion. We then agreed on the XRI TC telecon last Thursday to hold a special telecon about it on Monday at 1PM PT. I'll send details to the list. >Your HTTP URL canonical ID example is straight-forward and simple. Do >you have an example of how it would work with fragments, say: > >http://openid.aol.com/daveman692 - reassignable >http://openid.aol.com/daveman692#1234 - persistent See my next message about this. It works identically to David's examples (just substitute these as reassignable and persistent identifiers) except it has the advantage that it does not require an extra round-trip for discovery/verification of the persistent identifier (the Canonical ID) because the client can verify from the identifiers themselves that the provider of the reassignable identifier (the first one) is authoritative for the persistent identifier (the second one). =Drummond _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
